rockpond Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 But, it is highly disingenuous for you and others (yours is a very common argument amongst anonymous critics of the church) to say or suggest that because the law legitimizes their relationship with a marriage certificate the Church must also or will likely in the future. Abortion is legal in all states; marijuana legal in some. That doesn't mean the Catholic, Mormons and Baptists must acknowledge abortion and marijuana as legitimate, much less holy. It isn't BECAUSE the law legitimizes is, but that is a step in the process. Legal marriage is a term used in the temple definition of the law of chastity. Medical marijuana is now legal in some parts of the country. And one can use medical marijuana and hold a temple recommend.
Calm Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 1- The proclamation is not canonized or even held up as revelation. It is a statement.Perhaps not, and yet…. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/history-photos/photo-18?lang=eng Significant Events: The Lord has given the Presidents of the Church and other General Authorities an outpouring of the spirit of revelation here, including Official Declaration 2. More recently, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles unanimously approved and published “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” 2
Rob Osborn Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 1- The proclamation is not canonized or even held up as revelation. It is a statement. 2- Maybe church leaders could explain to gays how they fit into the plan of salvation. Maybe they could explain their role in the eternities. Isn't that what the church does? But it doesn't for gays. All it says now is "You're not good enough" and "We don't want you". The proclamation is doctrine of the church. You are wrong with the church view of gays.
HappyJackWagon Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 QuoteSignificant Events: The Lord has given the Presidents of the Church and other General Authorities an outpouring of the spirit of revelation here, including Official Declaration 2. More recently, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles unanimously approved and published “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” Isn't it interesting how that is worded. They have "approved" and "published" the proclamation. It doesn't even indicate if they wrote it, if it was inspired revelation. I've heard it theorized that the proclamation was written by church attorneys. Does anyone know who wrote the proclamation or what the writing process might have been?Either way, they approved it, but I'm curious about it's origins and possible legal intent. Still, it isn't canonized scripture so it should be taken for what it is, an official declaration of the first presidency and Q12.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 (edited) The proclamation is doctrine of the church. You are wrong with the church view of gays.It is true that it is not canonized. For the most part it not being canonized is irrelevant. It certainly is doctrine and it certainly is official. What I find astonishing is that members that claim to be fully believing members, dismiss what it says. Edited January 13, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
Kenngo1969 Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 I've heard it theorized that the proclamation was written by church attorneys. ... Nah! Couldn't have been! It's a binding rule of practice in every state that every licensed attorney must use the word whereas at least once in the final draft of every document they write. It's like a signal that says, "Yep! This document's legit!" See, e.g., Utah Rule of Professional Practice 17.1.5©(i)(A). Failure to comply with that rule subjects attorneys to potential disbarment. 1
DBMormon Posted January 13, 2015 Author Posted January 13, 2015 The proclamation is doctrine of the church. If by Doctrine you mean "present beliefs of the Church" I would agree.If you mean sustained as revealed truth.... I would disagree
tonie Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 The neverending debate on what is Doctrine. Can someone please demonstrate what Doctrine is?
HappyJackWagon Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 I'll take a stab at getting it started.Elder B.H. Roberts explained what Official Doctrine is: The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine.” President Harold B. Lee explains, “It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works.” May 4, 2007 First Presidency Statement-“Not every statement made by a church leader – past or present – necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal though well-considered opinion but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publication. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.” How are works accepted as “Standard Works”?D&C 28:13 explains “all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith." Since the Church was founded in 1830, new doctrine has been accepted six times. On every occasion, a three-step process was followed to add Official Doctrine: It requires the approval of the First Presidency, the concurrence of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, and then it must be accepted in a sustaining vote of the entire membership.Only then is it binding on the membership of the Church. The change will then be made to the body of accepted (canonized) scriptures. Those occasions are: 1830, Bible and Book of Mormon were officially accepted with the organization of the Church 1835, Doctrine and Covenants, first 103 sections were officially accepted 1880, Doctrine and Covenants additional 32 sections were accepted along with the Pearl of Great Price 1890, Polygamy was repealed (Official Declaration, p. 291) 1976, D&C sections 137 & 138 were officially accepted 1978, The priesthood was made available to all worthy males regardless of race (Official Declaration 2, p. 292)
The Nehor Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 You are absolutely right on all counts. But the question that seems to be unanswered by revelation is Does God view sex within the context of marriage the same as sex outside of marriage whether gay or straight? Most in the church think that God views someone with SSA differently than God views someone with opposite sex attraction. Whether that is God's view or not is, at this time unknown. What is known is that gay relations outside of marriage is wrong and straight relations outside of marriage is wrong. No one disputes that. And no one is asking the church to change it's views. As far as I can tell, everyone is only asking for clarification. You seem to need no further clarification. Actually the revelators have spoken on this point consistently for years. Would saying it again help? 1
The Nehor Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 The neverending debate on what is Doctrine. Can someone please demonstrate what Doctrine is?The revealed word of God as verified to the individual by the Holy Ghost.
DBMormon Posted January 13, 2015 Author Posted January 13, 2015 The revealed word of God as verified to the individual by the Holy Ghost.which or may not be true and really from the Holy Ghost as based on prior Doctrines that are now disavowed.
The Nehor Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 which or may not be true and really from the Holy Ghost as based on prior Doctrines that are now disavowed.Which sounds like a personal problem if a person cannot receive revelation clearly.If you want surety become perfect.
DBMormon Posted January 13, 2015 Author Posted January 13, 2015 (edited) Which sounds like a personal problem if a person cannot receive revelation clearly.If you want surety become perfect.what about when the whole Church can't receive revelation clearly? Is that a personal problem? Ex: race theories were once solid Doctrine believed by Church leadership to be God's truth. Edited January 13, 2015 by DBMormon
tonie Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 The revealed word of God as verified to the individual by the Holy Ghost. Really? You sure you want to go down that path? For instance, the priesthood ban was stated to be of God, so was the Priesthood ban Doctrine?
The Nehor Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 what about when the whole Church can't receive revelation clearly? Is that a personal problem? Ex: race theories were once solid Doctrine believed by Church leadership to be God's truth.Yes, become perfect and have the visions of eternity opened to you and you can differentiate truth from error more perfectly. Until then we get to deal with church leadership of whom we only have the promise that they will lead us to eternal life and not to hell. They usually do a lot more but that is the only real promise we have.
The Nehor Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 Really? You sure you want to go down that path? For instance, the priesthood ban was stated to be of God, so was the Priesthood ban Doctrine?Was it handed down by God? I have no idea. I am not perfect enough. I have asked many times and not gotten a yeah or nay. I suspect that we might find the answer too complex, too offensive, or too individualized for us to comprehend so God keeps his peace but I am definitely not sure of that.And yes, I am quite happy on this path. God tends to provide certainty in specific matters like the divinity of his Son and his mission, the reality of the Restoration, and the path home. We then build up myths and rationalizations around that path to explain them. Some of them may even be true but they are not revealed. If the Holy Ghost remains silent we can either try to reason it out or ignore it or, more likely, a mixture of both.The Priesthood ban was doctrine in the sense that it was taught. Did God endorse the explanations many leaders gave for it or even the ban itself? I do not know. I have had no revelation of confirmation or denial and I have asked. Demanding that prophets explain is not fair. They cannot force an answer from God any more then I or you can. they can speak on the matter but without the Holy Ghost confirming it I would treat anything said as speculation (though I do take prophetic speculation more seriously then I do most people's). I trust them to lead me to the fountain of all truth, not be that fountain. 1
Rob Osborn Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 If by Doctrine you mean "present beliefs of the Church" I would agree.If you mean sustained as revealed truth.... I would disagreeJust start your own church why dont you? You are out of the thread.
DBMormon Posted January 14, 2015 Author Posted January 14, 2015 Just start your own church why dont you?start up costs for one. Plus the pay isn't that great unless you start one of those mega churches.... Now that's the ticket a mega church with a live band and a book store.... gotta have a book store inside... that would be cool. you are so full of good ideas.... More people should listen to you 1
Mystery Meat Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 Just start your own church why dont you? Poor, poor form. We need folks like DB.
DBMormon Posted January 14, 2015 Author Posted January 14, 2015 Poor, poor form. We need folks like DB. Thanks my friend. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) 1- The proclamation is not canonized or even held up as revelation. It is a statement. It's not canonized, probably because it doesn't declare new doctrine. It reiterates doctrine that was already in place amongst the Latter-day Saints. But its issuance over the signature of the entire First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who together form the highest governing council of the Church, is a divinely inspired act. It won't do to trivialize it as "just a statement." 2- Maybe church leaders could explain to gays how they fit into the plan of salvation. Maybe they could explain their role in the eternities. Isn't that what the church does? But it doesn't for gays. All it says now is "You're not good enough" and "We don't want you". Maybe active homosexuals and their sympathizers could get used to the idea that the condition they are beset with is not eternal and is to be overcome, just like any other ungodly tendency or urge. Edited January 14, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 3
Scott Lloyd Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 Isn't it interesting how that is worded. They have "approved" and "published" the proclamation. It doesn't even indicate if they wrote it, if it was inspired revelation. I've heard it theorized that the proclamation was written by church attorneys. Does anyone know who wrote the proclamation or what the writing process might have been?Either way, they approved it, but I'm curious about it's origins and possible legal intent. Still, it isn't canonized scripture so it should be taken for what it is, an official declaration of the first presidency and Q12.What difference does it make who wrote it if it carries the signatures of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve?
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) Maybe church leaders could explain to gays how they fit into the plan of salvation. Maybe they could explain their role in the eternities. I strongly suspect that whatever has a 'role in the eternities' is by nature eternal. Homosexuality as a state of being has a known genealogy and was called into existence less than 150 years ago. Dominant discourses typically mask their own social construction, seeking to appear 'always already' existent, which is why historical illiteracy is the happy companion of ascendant social movements. The prophets, thankfully, seem less inclined to eternalise the temporal. Edited January 14, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan 1
HappyJackWagon Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 I strongly suspect that whatever has a 'role in the eternities' is by nature eternal. Homosexuality as a state of being has a known genealogy and was called into existence less than 150 years ago. Dominant discourses typically mask their own social construction, seeking to appear 'always already' existent, which is why historical illiteracy is the happy companion of ascendant social movements. The prophets, thankfully, seem less inclined to eternalise the temporal.What are you saying? Homosexuality is a modern invention within the past 150 years? I must be misunderstanding you. Could you please clarify. Maybe active homosexuals and their sympathizers could get used to the idea that the condition they are beset with is not eternal and is to be overcome, just like any other ungodly tendency or urge. Is there a church teaching that homosexual tendancies will cease in the next life?
Recommended Posts